Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash?

From: "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <a(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash?
Date: 2025-01-16 10:54:53
Message-ID: 16198d33-a4e2-46db-b6c3-494367f5816d@postgrespro.ru
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi!

On 16.01.2025 04:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Anton A. Melnikov" <a(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
>> Seems it is possible to exclude much less code from checking
>> under valgrind and get the same result by replacing the only
>> function call pg_rightmost_one_pos64() with a valgrind-safe
>> code. See the attached patch, please.
>
> There is no place anywhere in our code base where we hide unsafe
> code from valgrind rather than fixing said code. This does not
> seem like a place to start such an ugly practice. Performance
> does not trump everything else.

Thanks for remark. Agreed.

> I'd be inclined to just remove the pg_rightmost_one_pos64 call
> in favor of the other coding you suggest.

Here is a patch like that.

With the best wishes,

--
Anton A. Melnikov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Add-valgrind-safe-code-to-find-rightmost-bytes.patch text/x-patch 1.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2025-01-16 10:56:39 Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Previous Message Hunaid Sohail 2025-01-16 10:54:22 Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+